Posted - 2011.08.23 23:15:00 -
[121]
Is there any way to develop another driver for combat other than conquest?

In real life, when wars happen, the conquering nation does not usually drive out the native population. The conquerors take over the natives and make money from them. The conquered then have their own choice to make. Do they live under their new conquerors or do they leave?

What I am aiming at is a dynamic that would allow the big alliances to make their wars in null sec without completely wiping out the smallholders. One idea would be to have all corps in null sec pay rent for the use of a system. The rent is paid to the game if no one owns the system, and to the sov holder if someone does. A person who conquers a territory automatically collects the rent from all the smallholders in the region.

There need be nothing to prevent the larger alliance from wiping out all the smallholders, but the incentive to do so would be less.

Originally by:Cregg NeirOne idea would be to have all corps in null sec pay rent for the use of a system. The rent is paid to the game if no one owns the system, and to the sov holder if someone does. A person who conquers a territory automatically collects the rent from all the smallholders in the region.

There need be nothing to prevent the larger alliance from wiping out all the smallholders, but the incentive to do so would be less.

Now the fun part: define "use of a system". Putting up a pos is an obvious one, as is putting up any new "smallholding" things. But am I going to be charged for a 30 second warp through the system during my travels? Is an evil jovian overlord (because theres no concord or npc entity in sov 0.0) going to place a tax on bounties? Will I be charged isk for each m/3 I mine?

If X alliance takes Sov, do they set taxes? Whats to prevent them from setting it to 100% in systems they dont use?

Originally by:Cregg NeirWhat I am aiming at is a dynamic that would allow the big alliances to make their wars in null sec without completely wiping out the smallholders.

The problem is that the very idea of smallholding is counter-intuitive to holding territory. The possibility of being attacked by that random neutral 23/7 and the fact that that neutral gets access to intel is enough to make the majority of alliances wipe them out. The amount of money someone would have to pay an alliance to not kill them would be astronomical.

This post should probably be in the smallholding's thread, but oh well.

Remember, all these disparate threads refer to one whiteboard concept. It all ties together (it has to).

The current sovereignty mechanics, being based on the "bigger fleet wins" conquest model, do not support smallholdings at all.

What is needed is systems that can readily support enough people that a thousand person alliance can be content, even rich, in a constellation or two. There should be action out at 100AU, maybe even out as far as 200AU.

Just being in the same system as someone else shouldn't be enough to make you an immediate threat, but you should be able to go out and hunt people down. Cloaked bounty hunters taking bookmarks of the remote outposts of wanted characters and selling them to sov holders, stuff like that is potentially within the current mechanics but space isn't BIG enough for it to work.

Just being able to see who is in local shouldn't matter (like it doesn't really in the trade hubs).

Then, like I said in an earlier post, the sov holder needs a "piece of the action". I'm thinking 1% of all bounties go to the system holder just for starters. Probably a fixed "anchoring fee" as well, similar to current sovereignty fees that is big enough to be interesting in quantity, but small enough not to shut people out.

Simply put, sov holders need to be compensated for taking the risk of allowing non-allied people in their systems.

Originally by:Newt RondanseWhat is needed is systems that can readily support enough people that a thousand person alliance can be content, even rich, in a constellation or two.

This is pretty much what my idea here is about. But it also covers every other aspect of fixing nullsec as well.

It also addresses new and small alliances, new players, removes (most of) the rediculous HP structure shooting (replacing it will multiple smaller targets - better for small gang warfare, or splitting fleets over multiple targets), and changes fleet usage in general.

It also encourages alliances to form up and create trade, industry, mission-running, PVE and PVP hubs in nullsec. Good for everyone.

Then, like I said in an earlier post, the sov holder needs a "piece of the action". I'm thinking 1% of all bounties go to the system holder just for starters. Probably a fixed "anchoring fee" as well, similar to current sovereignty fees that is big enough to be interesting in quantity, but small enough not to shut people out.

Simply put, sov holders need to be compensated for taking the risk of allowing non-allied people in their systems.

Posted - 2011.08.25 04:03:00 -
[127]
The problem with all these replies, is that they are fractured suggestions. What we need is a comprehensive, well thought-out system for territory control and conquest. I would like to see a few suggestions that encompass they whole concept.*out due to extended downtime*

Posted - 2011.08.25 05:39:00 -
[128]
The only real idea about Sov, territory and conquest that seems like it might work and be fun is this:

There is no limit to the number of stations that can be dropped in a system. Only one station per corp per system. Corps must qualify to drop stations based on active member rosters, ie. 10 active members etc.

Every additional station increases Sov.Sov goes from 1 to maybe 20.The higher the Sov lvl the more defensive stuctures (like gate guns, station guns etc) that can be anchored. There are limits to how many structures can be anchored at POS, gate, or station. The various station types could provide bonuses to the system like each factory upgrades pirate complexes, refineries upgrade belts etc.

Sov bonuses are cumulative withing a certain Lightyear radius. So the more dense and area with stations, the more hardened it is defensively. Likewise, Sov bonuses can be negated by enemy stations within that radius. This creates border zones. Also, anchoring JB's should require high sov, I'm essentially advocating either making them rare or doing without them entirely.

The rationale here is simple. There is a terrain within a system. That terrain can be changed by the defender and that's his bonus. The rest of the conquest system would be done to ships/fleets.

--discourages alliance leaders from hoarding station control--encourages alliances to have more corporations per system--allows nullsec community to resemble highsec community--depending on how creative you got with anchorable defenses, could make conquest/defense very interesting and challenging--encourages "thriving communities" near an alliance hq

Posted - 2011.08.25 10:27:00 -
[129]
One option would be to inversely scale the difficulty on POS bashing, If a corp/Alliance only has one POS, the effort to pop it should be considerable, not a single salvo flyby with a fleet, and then comeback tomorrow to finish the job. The more POS's you have, the easier they get to pop. Relatively easy to implement and easy to fine tune.

Posted - 2011.08.25 18:06:00 -
[130]
I had an idea about Sov, and how to meet many of the goals out out in the blog. I think that in a way the totally open system of eve might be its worst enemy. Allowing corporations of arbitrary size basically makes it a numbers game in terms of space control.

My idea is the concept of "Capital Systems". Each corp that is sov holding in 0.0 can declare a system a "Capital" system. When the system is a capital system, they can either have access to particular upgrades, and they gain the ability to boost the amount of isk the system produces in some way, similar to how infrastructural hubs work.

Since each corp can only have one capital system, smaller corps will actually gain more money over-all, than one big corp, but only when considered collectively. Seizing a capital system, or owning one, could also work into the political meta-game, with possession of capital systems as a key metric of determining who owns particular space, and losing a capital system resulting in some kind of penalty.

The best space, will the be the ones with many small corps, working together, each with their own capital system. Defense of allies becomes important, nations will have actual borders, and it makes huge tracts of useless space actually viable, but only viable if an entity puts in the work to make it that way.

I would like to see all of eve basically reduced to Providence style Balkanized nation-states, with a shifting quilt of alliances and enemies. Coalitions of these states would form and dissolve relatively rapidly (and mechanically in the game, should be easy to break.) Alliances would be formed by chaining together large numbers of contiguous space, with certain benefits to the alliance for having control of certain territories.

The only way this works is to make ownership of a Capital system of reasonably lucrative. It shouldn't be incrementally so. Maybe 20% better than normal space in terms of income. it could also be same level of income, but be able to support alot more people. And i think any change thats made to any game mechanic needs to add to peoples options, and not subtract.

anyways thats my idea. I haven't vetted this or anything. I expect to be flamed. Enjoy.

Posted - 2011.08.25 20:42:00 -
[131]
Get rid of mechanical benefits of sovereignty altogether. If somebody has the balls to put up a station, jump bridge, POS, whatever, anywhere in 0.0, then have at it.

If an invading force jumps in a bunch of super caps then puts up a cynojammer, then so be it.

It should be up to the players to remove those structures/mechanics/whatever devices CCP thinks up for 0.0 warfare.

The key is The Official Designation of Sovereignty: 1. Certain entities put up a claim. (if some alliance doesn't want to let the world know he's got physical control of an area, that should be up to them)

2. Some neutral method that measures certain statistics to determine how much each of those entities controls a system. It could be something like

%isk made in system (PvE activity - leads to more targets to shoot if there's a conflict)+ %volume of components produced (industry, leads to more POS bashes and reasons to defend POS) + % players logged in system (population - leads to more players or alts in system). Any one indicator cannot be abused to win sovereignty. You would have to have people in system doing something while limiting the ability of your opponent from doing the same.

The claiming alliance with the highest score owns the system. e-peen is yours to enjoy.

Perhaps give the holders of system sovereignty a 5% bonus to isk/rat drops/ etc... as a further incentive to hold a system and an inherent "home field advantage".

Posted - 2011.08.25 22:01:00 -
[132]
I really can't see null sec being really unpopulated bye NPC pesents. On some of these planets people or some life forms should be there that need managing. Like in the Clear Skies 2 Movie planet dwellers rebelled aginst the Caldari. Depending on the system and if there are temperate planets in the system can dictate life. When you go to claim systems you have to appeal to the populace in that system if they are will developed and all. There will be not much of a rebellion from cave men and such.

Originally by:Newt RondanseWhat is needed is systems that can readily support enough people that a thousand person alliance can be content, even rich, in a constellation or two. There should be action out at 100AU, maybe even out as far as 200AU.

But they won't stop at what they need, they'll still claim as much space and barely use any of it. You'd just be giving them more valuable systems to waste. There need to be game mechanics which regulate how many systems a single entity can hold, either through a skill based hard cap, or making it so easy for other corps to claim unused systems to use themselves that it becomes futile for large alliances to try and keep them.

Originally by:Cregg NeirClaiming space is incredibly time consuming, and holding it even more so. It's all well and good to say that there should never be a feeling of safety, but this choice alone will always keep the bulk of players in high sec rather than in null sec. There is a huge population of potential players who do not want constant combat.

A common misconception. PvP is more constant in hisec than it is in 0.0. What's keeping people out of 0.0 are the powerblocks, who care more about holding empty systems than they do seeing more people in 0.0.

Posted - 2011.08.26 18:31:00 -
[136]
Territory and conquest. The basis of these words is in holding ground and taking it, creating a block of land for yourself and conquering others. But with the limited amount of space that there is and the ease of which to hold onto large swaths of land is what is keeping may players from going out to null sec and creating a space for themselves. I don't care how cheap it is I'm not paying some huge alliance protection money to protect me from them just to use some space i don't even really own. I see no value in that. The renter model needs to go away as far as I'm concerned.

As for the value of space, pre dominion settings i think should be brought back. this will allow people to create their own value as to how they want it in their systems... be it mining, ratting, or letting others make the money for them.

For the size of space we need some way to make holding large amounts of space worth less than holding onto a few systems or a constellation or two. Paying CONCORD for the right to call a system yours is a good mechanic we should still use. heck to even tie it into the game have the cost grow to a point where holding more than constellation or two makes CONCORD nervous and they want to cripple your wallets to a point where you couldn't muster the strength to attack the faction empires.

that takes care of the territory part. 1. value of space can support hundreds of players in a single system. THIS alone will not only boost activity in the system but give targets for gangs to shoot at. and 2. still keeps quite a bit of the current space open for new alliances to come out. Still keep the resources spread as they are... like moons and such. but make it so that each region or two have a unique resources that makes holding it not only profitable but urges the players to trade and export it.

Now for conquest. Back in earlier times it took months to years to take land from other countries or empires. Countless battles took place and many died for small strecthes of land. (now enough of the history and to the point) Conquest should not be as simple as pushing a button and receiving bacon. the timers on outposts and ihubs allowed for the negation of time zones yes and i think that worked. think of it this way. we are tired of shooting structures of enemies because there are so many of them. Well if you shrink someones space and holding more than you can support will bankrupt you will you really try and take all of a neighbors space? or will you try and unseat them and burn the land perhaps? If you shrink the alliances area they call home from regions to a constelation or two you will not only have more players to shoot at because you are condensing a regions worth of players into 4 to 5 systems, but to completly destroy their space wont take forever either!

i think the mistake we are making in this thread is we are looking at each aspect we want individually and not looking at them as a whole in regards to territory and conquest. yes its fine to assume cynos are fixed and local is gone and the value of the space has skyrocketed. But try and build a vision that will work in regards to the land and taking it.

so the condensed version of my idea is,

1. large alliances hold smaller amounts of space because it not only supports them better, but holding too much will bankrupt them.

2. because of the smaller space held more alliance can now hold space as well.

3. if two alliance dont like each other they will not only have more people to fight in each other system because of the numbers they have there, but the amount of structures they will have to shoot will be lower because they won less systems.

4. alliance can still create huge block of influence in regions but they will have to do it under multple flags, and groups instead of just one huge block.

Posted - 2011.08.27 04:21:00 -
[137]
Dont know if its been said but here are some points IMO would help.

1. SBU's should be able to be killed at all times. At this time in the game Big Alliance BLOBs come in for a CTA for 3 hrs. Take 5 min to hit iHub and Station with Super Blob and then get to rest for two days and have an exact time for there Pilot to have another BLOB CTA. During this time the defenders can do nothing but stare at the SBU's and know the impending Blob is coming. Mean while you never see the attacking force in system for two days. The Attacking force rinse and repeat twice and they got the system. The defence takes the two days to move his assets out if he can't fight the BLOB and LAG. The People are getting smart and not fighting due to the I win cause I have more SUPERS than you and the lag that comes with it. The pure fact is the Cluster just can't handle it no matter what spin anybody puts on it. When it take more then 3 to 4 sec to activate something it a sign of harware just cant handle it. With the SBU's attackable at all times while SOV is being challaged the attacker has to leave a defending force to keep them alive and more small gang warfare can happen which can help reduce the blob effect. Most Big Alliance Blobs will not do this and stay 24/7 in a system. This helps eliminate the Time Zone exploit of time zone BLOBs.

2. More space - more space - more space!!! At this this time Big blobs can move across EVE very fast. So to keep the whiny babies from complaining when adding new space make AU between gates - planets - belts four to five times longer in the new space added. This way the current space is not messed with. Make distances like 300 to 400 AU's. This will make movement long and cost more for jumping CAPS. They have to make more jumps equals more time to move in the new space.

3. Make More NPC Empire space. Everything in eve is in a circle. Jita's the center - lowsec is the middle ring - zero zero is the outer ring. There is only so many paths to pass and most of the major players block them or have scorch earth polices and kill any small alliance that trys to settle this space. Or they just pimp them out with threats of the Super Cap Blob. By makeing more Empire space on the other side of zero zero you create more space. Now people in deep zero zero can have two ways to go. Left or right. Now your have Jita - Low sec. - Zero Zero - Deep Space ( Which Warp times are 4 to 5 time greater) Zero Zero - Low Sec - New Epire space With another Jita like system with all the new stuff to populate/explore/sell. You Give space for people to grow without being camped or having to Suck up to some Big blob Alliance to pay them for a small alliace to be in zero zero. This in turn help create more player base. Alot of people leave the game after awhile cause the realize to get bigger or enjoy the bigger things in eve they have to SUCK / KISS Butt the established Blob Allianes to be able to do stuff with out being greif or becomeing a slave to some. No possibility or hope to GROW. People are not stupid.

4. Eve over time has made alot of ship improvments. But structures have had no love. Technology has improve for ships ( IE - dps/resistance/size). Why not for Stations and POS's. Super cap Blobs can RF a station/iHub in 2 to 3 min. Some times even less. So why fight the blob and the lag. Stuctures need more Hit points and better tech. to resist these new blob tactics.

3. Make More NPC Empire space. Everything in eve is in a circle. Jita's the center - lowsec is the middle ring - zero zero is the outer ring. There is only so many paths to pass and most of the major players block them or have scorch earth polices and kill any small alliance that trys to settle this space. Or they just pimp them out with threats of the Super Cap Blob. By makeing more Empire space on the other side of zero zero you create more space. Now people in deep zero zero can have two ways to go. Left or right. Now your have Jita - Low sec. - Zero Zero - Deep Space ( Which Warp times are 4 to 5 time greater) Zero Zero - Low Sec - New Epire space With another Jita like system with all the new stuff to populate/explore/sell. You Give space for people to grow without being camped or having to Suck up to some Big blob Alliance to pay them for a small alliace to be in zero zero. This in turn help create more player base. Alot of people leave the game after awhile cause the realize to get bigger or enjoy the bigger things in eve they have to SUCK / KISS Butt the established Blob Allianes to be able to do stuff with out being greif or becomeing a slave to some. No possibility or hope to GROW. People are not stupid.

+1 great idea. Surely this is easier than addressing the real issue which is Big Alliances how they can and do exert control by projecting force over large tracts of space, in the first place. That in itself is how they control Sov once they gain it.

Edit: Adding more space will not change anything, just make life harder for subcaps as they wont be able to warp such distances.

Posted - 2011.08.27 08:47:00 -
[139]
After having read the above posts, I would make 2 recommendations:A)If you want 0.0 to be truely accessable to small corps/alliances, then either restrict the total number of systems a single Alliance can hold Sov in at any one time or remove alliance mechanics from the game. B)POS's are all currently Corp controlled and various corps have rules/restrictions over their players being able to have their own POS's. A POS is supposed to be a player owned structure, not a corp owned structure. CCP should re work POS roles so that corps dont have control over them, unless it was a corp specific owned POS and that decision would have to be made by the person ancorhing & onlining the POS.Non corp controlled POS's would lead to a increase of POS's in 0.0 and could prove to be a source of encouragement for players not to be in large corps/alliances unless their needs aligned. Giving individual players control of POS's instead of corps, could also benefit Industry as they would therefore not be forced by corps to be dependant on using station services for researching and copying blueprints or for manufacturing, although they could still do that if they choose to. The arguement of moons possibly becoming cluttered with offlined/anchored POS's could be over come if it was possible to hack a offined POS and therefore allow players to either steal it or re-anchor it for themselves or their corp, giving incentive for not allowing that to happen. Other wise it would be up to capitals to kill it and it would be up to the individuals responsibility/risk to ensure that did not happen or to defend it either by themselves or with help of their allies.

Posted - 2011.08.28 19:40:00 -
[140]
Destructible stations! - 0.0 has become a safe haven for everyone. early 2005 Players had to live out of POS's and had to fight to defend there home, rather than retreating 1 jump to the next station system.

Billions of isk that can be blown up would make people fight alot more than saying we can take it out of there timezone.

Got assets in a 0.0 station? Tough sh*t! They should go down with the station itself. Open up a whole new ball game as far as logistics are concerned for 'big' alliances as it would not be safe to store valuables in stations unless its going to be well defended. Why would it be defened? Start from the begging of the post.

Originally by:True SightSov MechanicsWar in EVE and Most MMO's is what I shall call "World War II" style, rather than "Modern Warfare" style, simply because the modern warfare (that is, the fact a stronger force can tactical nuke or cruise missile to oblivion the enemies HQ and its all over), whereas in WWII, Germany couldn't just turn up and conquer Paris, England ETC, they had to fight for ground.

This is something I see as a current flaw in EVE sov mechanics, the attacking force doesn't care about all the space, in a lot of recent cases they didn't even 'want' it, they simply didn't want the other side to have it (E.g. alliances like PL being paid to attack people). When these conflicts start, the bad guys arrive at the defenders home system and camp it, whilst trying to flip the sov.

Make sov mechanics more territorial, Alliance A claims one system, this is sov lvl1, once they own all the adjacent systems, their core system becomes Sov II, once they own everything 2 systems out, it goes up to 3.. Sov 4 becomes like the old 'constellation' sov mechanic, immune and safe, with extra defences (How cool would alliance NPC stargate cops be?, not something that can clear a 100man fleet, but something to provide a tiny bit of defence).

When the bad guys turn up, they can't just run to the defenders main base and wipe them out, they have to actually fight their way 'into the core'. Make it more rewarding/easier to conquer a Sov 1 system than a Sov 2 one, etc. Make the Sov bills based on system Sov level, so as originally planned with the sov overhaul, the bigger an alliance spiders out, the more it costs them exponentially.

I like this idea for Sov Mechanics, but still think gaining Sov in a system should be about more than just anchoring a TCU.

Originally by:Craven MoreI like this idea for Sov Mechanics, but still think gaining Sov in a system should be about more than just anchoring a TCU.

Depends on how its done, one could say that sovereignty is acquired with TCU and then the holder is given a week to meet some activity criteria .. if unmet then TCU selfdestructs, offlines or something.Combine it with a contract/treaty system so that an alliance who just wants a moon/cyno/buffer system for instance can hire a caretaker corp to prevent sov from dropping.

Originally by:AgnemonOne option would be to inversely scale the difficulty on POS bashing, If a corp/Alliance only has one POS, the effort to pop it should be considerable, not a single salvo flyby with a fleet, and then comeback tomorrow to finish the job. The more POS's you have, the easier they get to pop. Relatively easy to implement and easy to fine tune.

This is basically where I was going with my posts in Small holdings (I agree with above poster also that the term "Small holdings" is wierd in that it is all SOV kinda unless you "Rent" from an alliance - which I am not against per se).

My idea though (TLDR version) was just to make small and medium POSs pretty much invulnerable but have larges vulnerable but the only ones that can do certain indy functions (think moon goo or build caps or build BS's, etc etc). This way smaller corps can easily setup shop but not really threaten larger ones as cap ships couldn't be kept at small/mediums (maybe we can change this dynamic by not letting them enter shield) or not letting them build them.) Just an idea that needs fleshing out but basically like you said scaling system and imho - scaled risk reward built into POSs (not just by fuel amount though which is the current POS risk/reward mechanic - ick!)

Originally by:menacemythThe only real idea about Sov, territory and conquest that seems like it might work and be fun is this:

There is no limit to the number of stations that can be dropped in a system. Only one station per corp per system. Corps must qualify to drop stations based on active member rosters, ie. 10 active members etc.

Every additional station increases Sov.Sov goes from 1 to maybe 20.The higher the Sov lvl the more defensive stuctures (like gate guns, station guns etc) that can be anchored. There are limits to how many structures can be anchored at POS, gate, or station. The various station types could provide bonuses to the system like each factory upgrades pirate complexes, refineries upgrade belts etc.

Sov bonuses are cumulative withing a certain Lightyear radius. So the more dense and area with stations, the more hardened it is defensively. Likewise, Sov bonuses can be negated by enemy stations within that radius. This creates border zones. Also, anchoring JB's should require high sov, I'm essentially advocating either making them rare or doing without them entirely.

The rationale here is simple. There is a terrain within a system. That terrain can be changed by the defender and that's his bonus. The rest of the conquest system would be done to ships/fleets.

--discourages alliance leaders from hoarding station control--encourages alliances to have more corporations per system--allows nullsec community to resemble highsec community--depending on how creative you got with anchorable defenses, could make conquest/defense very interesting and challenging--encourages "thriving communities" near an alliance hq

I like this idea. It would have to be well tested though - lots of loopholes as it is a huge change from the current. I am not sure I like the Light year range thing too. How does one handle that when you are in another constellation/system of same built up size but close to another alliance ya know?

Posted - 2011.08.29 17:34:00 -
[145]
Some very interesting ideas here. I personally like the ideas of removing SOV from a mechanical based system and the ideas to encourage trade through ownership taxes.

But just to give a really fresh perspective here (dons flameproof suit)à Why are we tying SOV to the alliance? Why not tie it to the corp that meets the SOV requirements? It seems a bit arbitrary to assign ownership to the alliance of the corp that is doing all the work for SOV. Now if corps want to give over their benefits of system SOV to their alliances, so be it. But this would give the member corps more leverage within alliances and make that political landscape extremely more interesting. It would go a long way in localizing politics and conflicts which seems to be one of the goals here.

If the alliance provides the member corps with enough benefits then the corps will come. If they don't, then the member corps have SOV of their own to try to make it with. CCP has stated that they are looking for ways to get people to feel like space is their "home", what better way to do that than to give ownership over that space directly to those who are working for it. If your a pilot in a large alliance, do you really feel like space is "yours" if the alliance is the one who has ownership of a system? Or would you be more inclined to view it as your home, if your corp controls it? A lot of what I have been seeing is people trying to figure out how to keep the large alliances from steam rolling over the small corps, well why not give some of the power within the alliances back to the corps? This would by no means remove the large alliances, but I think it might go a long way in bringing about smaller scale conflicts and spreading out eh power base of 0.0.

Originally by:menacemythThe only real idea about Sov, territory and conquest that seems like it might work and be fun is this:

There is no limit to the number of stations that can be dropped in a system. Only one station per corp per system. Corps must qualify to drop stations based on active member rosters, ie. 10 active members etc.

Every additional station increases Sov.Sov goes from 1 to maybe 20.The higher the Sov lvl the more defensive stuctures (like gate guns, station guns etc) that can be anchored. There are limits to how many structures can be anchored at POS, gate, or station. The various station types could provide bonuses to the system like each factory upgrades pirate complexes, refineries upgrade belts etc.

Sov bonuses are cumulative withing a certain Lightyear radius. So the more dense and area with stations, the more hardened it is defensively. Likewise, Sov bonuses can be negated by enemy stations within that radius. This creates border zones. Also, anchoring JB's should require high sov, I'm essentially advocating either making them rare or doing without them entirely.

The rationale here is simple. There is a terrain within a system. That terrain can be changed by the defender and that's his bonus. The rest of the conquest system would be done to ships/fleets.

--discourages alliance leaders from hoarding station control--encourages alliances to have more corporations per system--allows nullsec community to resemble highsec community--depending on how creative you got with anchorable defenses, could make conquest/defense very interesting and challenging--encourages "thriving communities" near an alliance hq

I like this idea. It would have to be well tested though - lots of loopholes as it is a huge change from the current. I am not sure I like the Light year range thing too. How does one handle that when you are in another constellation/system of same built up size but close to another alliance ya know?

If there were 2 constellations close to each other, both built up fairly well but belonging to non-friendly alliances.....i believe that would result in little bonus at the borders for either party, but the further from that border the more the bonus. If one side was built up with more stations per system, the bonus would go improve quicker as you moved in their territory.

The reason I like this idea is it encourages sharing of space and station rights in a way even the largest alliances will actually do, without forcing massive restrictions. the problem with most of the ideas i'm reading here is alliances will just find a way around them*out due to extended downtime*

Posted - 2011.08.30 23:27:00 -
[147]Edited by: Alice Katsuko on 30/08/2011 23:28:28Have you considered changing the basic unit of sovereign space from the solar system to the constellation? It would require some work, but could potentially solve several of the problems produced by the existing sovereignty mechanics.

The purpose of my proposal is to encourage alliances to fully utilize space, to discourage alliance and coalition sprawl.

This is the basic outline of what I was thinking of:

1. Alliances pay sovereignty fees for the entire constellation so long as they hold sov in a single system in that constellation. For example, if an alliance owns one system in a ten-system constellation, it will pay sov fees for all ten systems; if an alliance owns one system in five ten-system constellations, it will pay sov fees for fifty systems. This will (1) act as a stick to prevent alliance "sprawl," (2) make multi-regional jump bridge networks much more expensive, and (3) force alliances to fully develop each constellation. BUT an alliance's sov fees for a constellation are reduced as it takes more systems in that constellation. For example, if alliance owns five systems in a ten-system constellation, its sov fees might be reduced by 20%. This will act as a carrot to encourage alliances to fully develop each constellation.

1. a. Increase sov fees based on the number of blue-held regions adjacent. I haven't been able to think of a sufficiently specific mechanic, but this should be a system that encourages alliances to occupy specific regions, but discourages multi-regional coalition sprawl. Empty regions/constellations should not count for this purpose to avoid the creation of empty "buffer" zones unless you (CCP) want to discourage nullsec population growth.

1. b.HOWEVER, make sure that each constellation is viable in its own right. Adjust truesec ratings so that each constellation can support at least two hundred pilots -- this means there should be several systems capable of spawning Haven-type anomalies, since Havens are the anomalies non-capital pilots use to generate ISK. Ideally create better anomalies, using Incursion dungeons as a guide.

2. SBUs deployed in a singe system make all neighboring systems vulnerable. Alternatively, all systems in the constellation become vulnerable. Or systems within two jumps. Or "gateway" systems -- systems linking the constellation to other constellations -- become vulnerable. The idea is to make sovereign space easier to attack, and increase unpredictability.

3. Sovereignty fees decrease with higher development indexes. This will incentivize alliances to use their space.

4. If the military index is kept at 0 for more than 48 hours, the alliance begins to incur higher sov costs which increase every day, up to a maximum of 300% or so. If the military index is left at 0 for more than 96 hours, the system spawns a "mini-incursion:" these should be at most Vanguard-type sites, but paying only 50% or perhaps 25% of the normal incursion payouts, and spawning Sansha ships on gates and at the station. If the military index is left at 0 for more than 142 hours (6 days), the system is SBUed for 24 hours, and the IHUB and TCU are destroyed at the end of that time. Incursion Sansha should "guard" the deployed SBUs.

The purposes of this mechanic are (a) to encourage alliances to live in and protect their space, and (b) to prevent alliances from forcing invaders to waste months grinding through empty systems. Since it's fairly easy to raise the military index to 1 or even 2 for any sizable alliance, perhaps military 1 or even 2 should be the threshold. As an additional benefit, this will prevent alliances from deploying fully over long distances for any length of time, since otherwise a small force of reds will be able to prevent the remaining residents from ratting and thus will eventually cause the alliance to lose sov.

Posted - 2011.09.01 01:58:00 -
[148]
You know, I've only been playing this game for about 3 months, but like most of you, I've been playing strategy games for a long time. I've read a lot of what is here in several of the topics under review, and there are various, many times complex solutions to all of them. I think there is a simple solution to many of these issues; change the architecture of space in EVE.

The EVE universe as it exists today is basically a flat disk. This makes it very easy for the existing alliances and pirates in Low Sec to control the choke points into Empire space. Why not extend the EVE universe into a spherical shape. Obviously this means many more star systems and gates, and it is much harder to control 3D space where there are many entries. This would necessarily limit the size of sovereign blocks, because you have to be able to control all that space, and this would smear out the concentrations of power in choke points and make it harder to control.

Likely there would be some areas of space that are permanently unclaimed, at least until the player base expanded enough to exercise control over all of it. This would give small holdings a place to explore and stake claims. There would be room for new players to get out of Empire without having to submit to one power block or another. Rents would go away because why rent from these alliances when you can just go find some free space and mine/rat/POS there. This also spreads out the money and lets people get more into PvP without having to worry so much about the cost of replacing ships. More PvP would make a lot of players really happy. Going on roams could be a real adventure out over hundreds of systems.

Changes that would have to go with this are controls over botting, because the space could be filled with bots very quickly. We also might need to come up with expansions of the various NPC groups into this space. Sovereignty might require that the space under control be worked by the holders or revert to free space in a period of time, with the resulting loss of POSs and stores in the system, so that the alliances don't just dump POSs everywhere to claim the space.

There could be many approaches to implementing this new space, and lots of them have been discussed in other of these threads. I don't know what the price of such an expansion of space is in terms of hardware, but it seems the initial cost in coding is minimal, though I don't know what coordinate system is being used in defining systems. Given that a lot of this space might be empty or lightly used, the cost in server expansion might be minimal as well. Perhaps some of the CCP folks here can address that question. But I truly believe that if you want to grow this player base, and your business, an expansion of space is really needed to give the freedom that true space exploration and colonization would have in fact.

No I've not thought it all the way through, yes it would create major emo-rage when you lose a hanger of 100 ships. But maybe create a way for there to be different tiers of outpost. From the current ones, limiting their total hanger capacity (that is cumalative for all players, not on a per player basis) so that larger alliances cannot realisticly base out of one. Make citadel outposts that an alliance can deploy to claim a region, and make it invulnerable until a certain number of constallations in the region have been compromised.

Originally by:Jeff simply From the current ones, limiting their total hanger capacity (that is cumalative for all players, not on a per player basis) so that larger alliances cannot realisticly base out of one.

New form of griefing: I fill up the station until 90% of the space is filled with my crap. Obviously if it is set really high, it might take me a month or two to get it to max capacity. Then i use a nearby pos for storage while i slowly transfer more stuff to the station when people undock or move stuff.

I have now effectively ruined that outpost. The owning alliance has to front another 30 bil or w/e they cost to build a new one in the system if they want to continue operations. This would just make 0.0 more confusing as you would end up with 2-3 stations in the good systems.

On a side note, how would you prevent people from docking a bunch of industrial ships and jsut storing stuff in there. If the ship hangar was included in the size limit, then when i control 90%+ of the space, i effectively stole docking rights too. ^_^

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.